Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

a reply to: cooperton

You really are devoid of humour? How sad.

a reply to: cooperton

The Bible most certainly does not mention "Agent Smith" or the "Matrix", so there is that.

As to thought-police that's most famously associated with George Orwell's "1984".

None of which changes the fact that the theory of evolution is widely accepted within our respective scientific communities, and is a well-supported explanation for the diversity of life on planet Earth.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: cooperton

You really are devoid of humour? How sad.

That was your attempt at humor? Lol, that's funny.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: cooperton

The Bible most certainly does not mention "Agent Smith" or the "Matrix", so there is that.

Like purplemer said, we can talk in ways that are beyond the Bible, but the Bible is the most familiar spiritual text.

You guys are acting like archetypal agent smiths, and he is in most people waiting to emerge any time anyone goes outside the narrative. Every time I say something that defies evolution you all come out and go fn crazy missing me with all your bullets

originally posted by: Ohanka
I want to know why Young Earth Creationism

The earth was likely created in a mature state, just like the prototype human was created as a full grown man and woman instead of an infant.

a reply to: cooperton

Like purplemer said, we can talk in ways that are beyond the Bible, but the Bible is the most familiar spiritual text.

Smashing and quite the relief to hear you say that as it opens up the avenue for debate by miles.

I'm still not entertaining your 40% water in the mantle nonsense all the same, but good to hear nontheless.

You guys are acting like archetypal agent smiths, and he is in most people waiting to emerge any time anyone goes outside the narrative.

The problem is narratives are different from science and facts, it's colouring outside those lines that present significant dilemmas.

originally posted by: andy06shake


The problem is narratives are different from science and facts, it's colouring outside those lines that present significant dilemmas.

The best paintings are the ones without lines. Coloring in the lines is for children. The reason I am so vehemently against being vehemently for evolution is because it prevents true revelation of who and what we are, and our role in the universe.

a reply to: cooperton

Shame you took it seriously. But then you take a lot of whoo whoo seriously.

a reply to: cooperton

I would imagine that's rather subjective and depends on personal preferences and artistic taste.

I mean if you like abstract or non-representational art, where the emphasis is on colour, form, and emotion as opposed to realistic depictions then i suppose you're correct.

You might be against the theory of evolution but again its widely accepted within the scientific community as a well-supported explanation for the diversity of life on Earth with evidence to support such that comes from various scientific disciplines.

As to our role in the universe, its a big place buddy, i would not get ahead of yourself, and some questions are simply above our paygrade and/or ability to answer in any sort of meaningful manner.

a reply to: cooperton

"The earth was likely created in a mature state, just like the prototype human was created as a full grown man and woman instead of an infant."

Explain dinosaurs and the fossil record?

Don't tell me, Satan put them there?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: cooperton

Shame you took it seriously. But then you take a lot of whoo whoo seriously.

Have you considered you're the one believing in whoo whoo?

You're defending the most unintelligent theory ever contrived by the human imagination. It is by its own definition the most unintelligent origin theory of all time. You could not think of an origin story that involves less intelligence. What is your guys fixation with the origin of humankind being so stupid?

a reply to: cooperton

The Earth was formed by a process involving gnarly space gasses, stars, space explosions and gravity pulling together the resultant space crap. It's pretty cool like all things space related.

But that doesn't address my question.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: cooperton

The Earth was formed by a process involving gnarly space gasses, stars, space explosions and gravity pulling together the resultant space crap. It's pretty cool like all things space related.

But that doesn't address my question.

Yeah I would bet God used some awesome nuclear fusion processes to create the various elements of the periodic table and to form them in a way that allows life to persist upon it.

a reply to: cooperton

Instead of insulting folk that dare to disagree with you, how about answering my question about Dino's and the fossil record?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: cooperton

"The earth was likely created in a mature state, just like the prototype human was created as a full grown man and woman instead of an infant."

Explain dinosaurs and the fossil record?

Don't tell me, Satan put them there?

No, as always, a true analysis of empirical data, rather than blindly believing 'experts', will yield more comprehensive realizations of truth. Dinosaur bones frequently contain soft tissue, and it's been carbon-dated to less than 40,000 years old. Our ancestors also depicted them, because they lived alongside of them:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Everything about evolution is a house of cards. There's so many instances of empirical data that disprove the possibility of the evolutionary timeline

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: cooperton

Instead of insulting folk that dare to disagree with you, how about answering my question about Dino's and the fossil record?

That's not an insult, i was merely describing evolution.

An ad hominem is "appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect". So actually I'm doing the opposite. I am appealing to intellect rather than emotions. My intellect tells me that an unintellectual origin theory (evolution) that wishes to void intellect from the equation is the most unintellectual possible idea regarding the origins of intellect.

a reply to: cooperton

Okay well maybe but there's no way to prove it, but my question was why the Young Earth Creationism movement seems mostly confined to the USA. Most of the world's Christian faithful get by just fine without the reality of the world creating a crisis of faith for them that must be corrected and "proven false".

The Catholic Church boasts the largest Christian following worldwide, and while I have many, many criticisms of them as an organisation even traditionalist members of the Church seem quite content with current scientific understanding regarding the diversity of life and origin of the universe. A Catholic priest was the one who first proposed the Big Bang theory as I recall.

What is it about some American Christians which compels them to reject select scientific facts because they contradict the scripture, and why must stories that are largely considered fable be taken completely literally, in face of overwhelming evidence against such an interpretation?

a reply to: cooperton

"Dinosaur bones frequently contain soft tissue, and it's been carbon-dated to less than 40,000 years old."

Really?

Source?

a reply to: cooperton

"You're defending the most unintelligent theory ever contrived"

I'd call that insulting?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: cooperton

"You're defending the most unintelligent theory ever contrived"

I'd call that insulting?

Are you making the case that there is intelligence involved in the origin of biological creatures then? Otherwise, no it is not an insult, it is a matter of fact. You have no intelligence involved in your theory.